FILE – In this Nov. 30, 2017 file photo, American soldiers wait on the tarmac in Logar province, Afghanistan. The U.S. is pausing movement of troops into Afghanistan and quarantining 1,500 new arrivals to country due to virus. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul, File)
As the Western media continues to blame Russia’s policy in Afghanistan, a never-ending information war seems to take a new round aggravating the peace process in the country.
The leading U.S. media outlets claimed Russia was funding Taliban referring to the movement’s commanders. However, both the New York Times and Insider refused to name not only their sources but also American official spokesmen who reportedly said they had found out links between Taliban’s and Russia’s banking accounts. The outlets also claimed Russia’s financial support to Taliban was aimed at killing U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but no evidence and details have ever been provided.
The claims of the Western media seem even more baseless after the interview with Qatar-based Taliban’s official spokesperson Mohammad Sohail Shahin had been released.
Speaking to journalists covering the Russian policy in the Middle East, Shahin denied any funding from Russia. “This statement is proofless and has nothing to do with the truth. We believe such claims appear in the context of the internal political struggle in the United States and are organized by opponents of the Afghan peace process”, Mohammad Shahin said. “The main goal of these campaigns is to undermine the Afghan peace process”, he added.
In February, 2020, Washington signed a peace deal with Taliban confirming to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan. However, a year on, the agreement’s major clauses have not come to effect. Much due to internal confrontations between the U.S. establishment and the U.S. Conservative Party. With Biden Administration taking the power and its policy focused on international intervention, the process is likely to be delayed. Yet, procrastination of the peace process in Afghanistan may lead to irreversible and tragic consequences in an already war-torn country and cause a total halt of economic and industrial development.
Moreover, in a current situation of limited on-spot-covering due to the closed borders, independent and non-affiliated media are not able to provide an objective view of the peace process development in Afghanistan. And this is often turned into advantage by the Western mainstream media.
Words have meanings and consequences as Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan found out when he told a journalist last week that the powerful Russian Iskander missiles, supposedly fired by Armenia during the Artsakh War last November, “did not explode or exploded 10%.” This surprising statement was in response to an interview by previous President Serzh Sargsyan in which he asked why Pashinyan had not ordered the use of the Iskander missiles during the early part of the Artsakh War.
Several days after the Prime Minister’s highly controversial statement, his spokeswoman announced that Pashinyan “was not briefed correctly regarding the Russian missiles.” But it was too late. The damage was done.
No one could have predicted the chain of unexpected events that followed Pashinyan’s words questioning the merits of the Iskander missiles that Russia had exported exclusively to Armenia. A large number of Russian military experts and political leaders reacted very harshly to Pashinyan’s statement viewing it as disparaging of the prized missiles of Russia and the prestige of its defense industry.
However, the reaction within Armenia was no less devastating. When First Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces Tiran Khachatryan, a Lieutenant General, was asked to comment on Pashinyan’s statement about the Iskander missiles not exploding, he responded with a chuckle that it was not possible and not serious.
Upon hearing of this slight, Prime Minister Pashinyan immediately ordered the firing of the Deputy General Staff. His dismissal was endorsed by Pres. Armen Sarkissian, according to the process outlined in the constitution. The Prime Minister had surely overreacted to Khachatryan’s snub, particularly since Pashinyan himself had appointed him in June 2020 and awarded him the prestigious “National Hero” medal for his outstanding role during the Artsakh War.
In retaliation, dozens of top Armenian military leaders released a joint statement on Feb. 25, 2021, demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister and his government. The statement was signed by Onik Gasparyan, Chief of the General Staff and 40 other high-ranking military Officers, including 17 generals and Commanders of all five Army Corps. Later, several other military and police officials added their signatures.
The military’s statement expressed its “resolute protest” against the “short-sighted and baseless” dismissal of the First Deputy Chief of the General Staff “without taking into account the national and state interests of the Republic of Armenia, solely based on personal and pretentious sentiments.” The statement added that “in such difficult conditions for the country, such a decision is an anti-state and irresponsible step. The Prime Minister and his government are no longer able to make adequate decisions in this critical and fateful situation for the Armenian people. The Armed Forces, for a long time, patiently tolerated the ‘attacks’ by the incumbent authorities to discredit the Armed Forces, but everything has its limits…. The current authorities’ unproductive governing and the most serious errors exhibited in foreign policy have brought the country to the brink of collapse. Based on the created situation, the Armed Forces demand the resignation of the Prime Minister and the government….”
Pashinyan immediately announced on his Facebook page the firing of the Chief of the General Staff. The Prime Minister called the military’s statement “an attempted military coup,” urging his supporters to gather at the Republic Square where he joined them and marched in Yerevan streets holding a megaphone. This was a highly irresponsible act on the part of Pashinyan, venturing to the streets during what he described as an attempted military coup, which could have led to tragic consequences for the country had anyone harmed him.
After Pashinyan ordered the firing of Onig Gasparyan, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, Pres. Sarkissian, having consulting all sides of the political spectrum, refused to sign the Prime Minister’s order, calling it unconstitutional. The Prime Minister then submitted a second dismissal request to the President. Should the President refuse to sign the order for a second time, then the issue will be submitted to the constitutional court for its final decision. It is curious as to why the President endorsed the Prime Minister’s earlier order to sack the First Deputy of the General Staff but refused to sign the order to dismiss the Chief of the General Staff. After all, the First Deputy Chief of the General Staff’s wrongdoing was simply chuckling at the Prime Minister’s statement about the Russian missiles, whereas his boss, the Chief of the General Staff, demanded the Prime Minister’s resignation.
In the meantime, the Armenian military took no further steps beyond its call for the resignation of the Prime Minister which the Prime Minister wrongly described as an attempted coup. However, the statement could be viewed as interference in political affairs which violates the constitution. It is clear that the military’s intent is having the Prime Minister resign without taking any military actions.
Turning to the unconstitutionality of the military’s statement, there are counter points to this argument. The military stated that they could no longer remain quiet while the country is on the brink of collapse. The national interest of Armenia has to be of paramount importance. After all, the military is the guardian of the nation’s security. Furthermore, Pashinyan and his supporters cannot all of a sudden claim to be defenders of the constitution, when they have been violating many of its provisions in the past three years. The Prime Minister has repeatedly pressured the courts and has stacked the Constitutional Court with his allies to get verdicts desired by the government. Pashinyan and his supporters similarly pressured Pres. Sarkissian to force him to sign the Prime Minister’s order. Ironically, the democratic principles endorsed by Pashinyan when coming to power have dissipated turning the country into a one-man rule, a dictatorship. Given the Prime Minister’s partisans’ overwhelming majority in Parliament, other voices have been mostly muzzled. All suggestions to form a government of competent experts have been ignored, leaving Pashinyan with a mediocre and incompetent cadre of officials and advisors.
Pashinyan’s only important attribute is that he is not corrupt — which is very positive, but that alone is not enough to lead the state through such turbulent waters. After all, Armenians are not looking for a saint, but a competent leader who can solve the country’s complex problems.
Furthermore, Pashinyan and his followers did not always practice what they are preaching now. Back in 2018, when there were widespread street protests by Pashinyan and his supporters, a large number of Armenian soldiers illegally left their barracks and marched with the demonstrators. Even though this was a violation of military rules and interference in politics, Pashinyan did not take any action against these soldiers. In a similar situation occurred in 1998, when Defense Minister Vazgen Sargsyan forced then President Levon Ter-Petrosyan to resign. No one complained that it was unconstitutional.
Shortly after this new crisis in Armenia, leaders in Azerbaijan and Turkey issued self-serving statements on the situation in Armenia. In my opinion, both of these countries, led by dictators, are in no position to comment on developments in Armenia, let alone give Armenians lectures about democracy. They should look at themselves in the mirror and keep their mouths shut.
Having suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of our enemies in the Artsakh War, Armenians cannot afford now to attack each other. We need to place the national interest above all else. Having lost most of Artsakh and thousands of soldiers, let’s not risk losing Armenia itself.
Pashinyan, the leader of the ‘Velvet Revolution,’ should not have told his followers last week that there will be no more ‘velvet’ which could be interpreted as a threat to anyone who disagrees with him. Should the military also adopt a no velvet approach, the outcome would be tragic for the entire Armenian nation. The best solution would be for the Prime Minister, having lost territories and thousands of soldiers, to resign by his own volition without facing any threats or protests. Otherwise, having demanded Pashinyan’s resignation, the military leaders may carry out their demand by force, to ensure that they themselves are not arrested. Such a group arrest would deprive Armenia of its entire military leadership. Months from now, under calmer conditions, new parliamentary elections should take place with a clean slate, hopefully excluding Pashinyan and the other former leaders. The people have the right to decide by a majority vote who their new leader should be.
Prof. Dr. Hakkı Keskin, Retired Faculty Member, Political Scientist, Former Member of the German Parliament, and the European Parliamentary Assembly www.keskin.de [email protected]
25 February 2021
To the President of the USA Mr. Joe Biden and
To the USA Vice President Ms. Kamala Harris
An Open Letter to the Public
The President of the USA, Mr. Joe Biden,
The US Vice President Ms. Kamala Harris,
Congratulations on your role in ending the Trump period, the likes of which have never been seen in the history of the United States. His denial of the election results encouraged an attack on the U.S. Capitol by his brutal, racist, and extreme right supporters, which led to the death of five people. The elected senators and members of Congress had to flee. The USA witnessed a civil coup attempt, and the country that has tried to teach the world about democracy lost its image and prestige.
Like everyone else, I am very curious about what your administration will learn from Trump’s civilian coup attempt. I watched the speech you gave after the oath with great attention. You said, “We have learned again that democracy is precious. Democracy is fragile. And at this hour, my friends, democracy has prevailed.”
Democracy and its value are of paramount importance not only for the United States, but for all countries. Democracy and Universal Human Rights, Judicial Independence, Superiority of Law, Freedom of Press and Intellectual Property are universal values that should be defended and protected by all believers in democracy and by all countries of the world.
Does the USA, which is said to be the cradle and defender of democracy, defend these universal values for other countries?
Could it be an acceptable policy to destroy or suspend these values by civilian or military coups?
I see in myself the right to ask you for the answers of these two questions, which I believe to be true and right. We see that the USA took an active role in carrying out military or civilian coups in more than 50 countries after World War II, declaring war on some and making military interventions in some. We know that the USA caused that irreversible suffering and the death of millions of people by military interventions and disregarding international law and universal human rights. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are the most known countries in the world public opinion.
We also witness how the United States brought down the governments that came to power through democratic elections by giving direct or indirect support to military or civilian coups during this period. Let me share with you how the US Governments destroy democracy and universal values, by just four examples that have been proven to be true.
INDONESIA
Ahmed Sukarno, leader of Indonesian national independence and the National Party, was overthrown in a military coup in 1965. Ahmed Sukarna was the leader and first President of Indonesia, which had been a Dutch colony for 300 years. The independence war starting in the 1920s was led by Sukarno and it ended up in victory in 1945.
Sukarno, with its anti-independence and anti-colonial views and above-bloc policy, had become the target of the United States. In addition, Indonesia is a country rich in mineral reserves. USA ended the Ahmed Sukarno’s rule with the coup by supporting the Indonesian army and jihadist groups against the leader of Indonesia’s independence symbol.
Under the dictatorial regime of the coup leader General Suharto, a “holy war against the atheists” was declared, and more than 500 thousand opponents of the coup and members of the Indonesian Communist Party were murdered. According to the New York Times, “These attacks were one of the most brutal mass murders in modern history.” Suharto ruled the country with dictatorship for 31 years, ignoring all democratic rights and freedoms.
IRAN
The people of Iran appointed Mohammed Mosaddegh as prime minister in 1951 with their free will and democratic election. Prime Minister Mossadegh decided to expropriate the oil enterprises, which are the main source of income for his country. The oil business was previously given to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company by Shah Reza Pahlevi.
The USA and England carried out the coup by first organizing protests against Prime Minister Mossadegh and then putting the Army into action. On the 60th anniversary of the coup, documents in the US National Security Archive were opened, thus politically confirming that “the military coup was carried out under the CIA as part of US foreign policy”. Thus it is accepted that the USA played an important role in the 1953 military coup, which overthrew the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran.
Shah Reza Pahlavi, who fled from his country after the military coup in 1953, returned to Iran and by pursuing a close ally policy to the USA, revoked the decision to nationalize Iranian oil. Members of the banned Mossadegh government were imprisoned and hundreds were killed.
The removal of Mohammed Mossadegh, who came to power by the free will of the Iranian people and democratically, from power by a US-assisted military coup led to the current Islamist administration in Iran to come to power in 1979.That’s why, the USA is in the position of real responsible for all the events in Iran that are incompatible with democracy for 42 years.
CHILE
Socialist-minded Salvador Allende became President in 1970 by winning elections held under the free will of the people and democratic conditions. In addition to the wide-ranging reforms he promised before the election, he nationalized the copper mine and industry held by US companies in 1971.
The US President Richard Nixon, who opposed the socialist Allende administration and especially the nationalization of the copper mines and industry, ordered the National Security Congress to “overthrow Allende”. The CIA report dated October 16, 1970 ordered to start working on a coup in Chile. On the one hand, US-supported economic boycotts were put into effect; on the other hand, a military coup was prepared with the Chilean army. In spite of economic difficulties, Allende increased his votes and won the 1973 elections.
On September 11, 1973, the CIA-backed armed forces led by General Pinochet, who was the Army commander, bombed the presidential palace and seized power. During the coup, President Allende committed suicide in order not to give in to the coup plotters. After the coup, Pinochet ruled Chile under a dictatorship until 1990.Tens of thousands of anti-coup and Allende supporters were murdered.
TURKEY
In Turkey, where I was born and completed my education, the first military coup by officers who identify themselves as Kemalist, was held in May 27, 1960 against the Democratic Party Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, who came to power democratically, and against elected President Celal Bayar. The Bayar-Menderes administration, which won the elections in 1950, applied increasingly oppressive practices against the opposition, the press, the secularism principle of the constitution and university youth, ignoring the laws after the second election period.
The military coup junta of 1960 executed the prime Minister Menderes, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Finance at the end of a court where the independent judicial rules were violated.
Young officers who played an active role in the coup and retired General Cemal Gursel, whom they perceived as their leaders gave the assurance of leaving the administration to the civilian administration by elections putting into effect a modern and democratic constitution in the full sense of their purpose. Indeed, an extremely democratic Constitution was accepted and put into effect on July 9, 1961 by popular vote. The administration was left to the civil administration with the parliamentary elections held on 15 October 1961.
We see that the US administration did not take a stand in favor of democracy in the 1960 coup and recognized the coup government on the first day. However, we do not have any proven information that the US supports the formation process of this coup.
The September 1980 military coup led to the overthrown of the coalition government led by Prime Minister Süleyman Demirel, who was democratically elected and who came to power with the free will of the people. The leader of the junta, General Kenan Evren became the Head of State later.
The declassified documents of the US State Foreign Affairs Department regarding the September 12, 1980 junta coup clearly prove that the United States took an active role in this military coup. Paul Henze, who was Turkey’s Chief of the CIA in the 1970s, informed US President Jimmy Carter by this statement “The boys in Ankara did it” about the September 12, 1980 coup. After the army took the control of Turkey administration, US Ambassador in Ankara, James Spain wrote about “US-Turkey relations” and stated that “We know all existing military leaders well and we do not need to concern about especially Nato membership and mainly about Turkey’s security and that there may be changes in its foreign policy. As a matter of fact, in their first declaration, the putschists immediately declared their commitment to external forces who supported them, saying “we are loyal to all our alliances and commitments, including NATO”.
US documents summarizing the coup, right and left ideology fights were initiated in known ways “through our provocateurs in the preparation process for the military coup. So chaos first, layout next. It was not difficult to provoke the public for our provocateurs who were sent to the country. The people of the country were divided into right and left and started to clash. Clashes got to such a degree that fifty-sixty people started to get killed in street fights every day. The whole country was cringed under the fear of terror. People were not able to go out in the evenings. The day after the military coup, all right-left clashes were completely ended. The unfortunate people of the country perceived this supposed success as a result of the coup. Because terrorism was finally over, peace had come to the country. In fact, the task of the provocateurs was over, so, they had quitted the scene.”
The main purpose of this military coup, whose organization was supported by the United States, was to prevent the democratic freedoms provided by the 1961 Constitution, the rapidly developing union organization, and the development of left and socialist opposition. The fascist military junta closed the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, abolished the 1961 constitutional practice. Leaders of all political parties were arrested; all political parties, trade unions and civil society organizations were banned. According to official figures, 650,000 people were detained, 230,000 people were tried by military courts, approximately 300 people died, 171 of whom were tortured in prisons, 50 people were executed, and 1,683,000 people were blacklisted.
An undemocratic Constitution, which is the source of many problems we face today, was established by the military junta. Accordance with the transitional clauses added in the Constitution, Junta leader Kenan Evren became Turkey’s president for a seven-year period. The Anavatan Party, headed by Turgut Özal, won the parliamentary election held on November 6, 1983 and formed the government as prime minister. By the way, this election was carried out only by the participation of political parties which were allowed to take part in the election by the junta.
Because of these crimes against humanity, surviving Junta leader Kenan Evren and General Tahsin Şahinkaya were tried by the court in 2014 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
A military coup attempt which was carried out by some officers on 15-16 July, 2016 in Turkey failed. The Grand National Assembly of Turkey was bombed by the commissioned officers attempting the coup. Turkish Armed Forces and Police officials prevented this coup attempt on July 16. As a result of the clashes, more than 300 people, 104 of whom were pro-coup soldiers, died and 1491 people were injured. 8036 soldiers of different ranks were detained on the grounds that they organized and helped the coup.
This military coup attempt was carried out by the supporters of the Fettullah Gülen Movement, which has been structured for decades on the principle of organizational secrecy in the army, in the police, in the judiciary and in all state institutions. 60 thousand people, who were said to be the supporters of this movement, were detained until April 2018, 50 thousand people were arrested, and 152 thousand public personnel were dismissed on the accusation of members of this organization. In the four years following the coup attempt, 289 cases were sued and a total of 4130 defendants were convicted in 275 cases resolved.
Adalet and Kalkınma Party (Justice and Development Party), which was founded under the chairmanship of Tayyip Erdogan on August 14, 2001, won the Parliamentary elections on November 3, 2002. Recep Tayyip Erdogan took over the duties of Prime Minister and then President. As a newly formed party, they did not have the necessary cadres. For this reason, the Erdogan government collaborated with Gülen Movement members in all areas until 2013.Thus, the Gülen Movement had the opportunity to be structured in all institutions of the state. Due to the separation with the government after 2013, the Gülen Movement tried to come to power through a military coup attempt.
It is known that Fethullah Gülen, who has been living in the USA since 1999, and his hundreds of inner circles who manage his private schools have very close relations with the USA and the CIA. The fact that former CIA director Graham Fuller and former US Ambassador of Ankara Morton Abramowitz became guarantors for Gülen’s stay in the United States shows this close relationship. In their confessions, some members of the Gülen military coup attempt, who are on trial, also stated the close ties of this movement with the USA and the CIA. In the Great Middle East Project of the United States, the calculation that the Gülen movement with Islamic religion elements will enable the neutralization of the resistance originating from religion in the region played an important role in this close relationship. Despite the Turkish government’s insistence, the failure to give Fethullah Gulen, the main responsible for the July 15 military terrorist attempt, back to Turkey to be tried also proves the US approach to this issue.
Mr. President Biden and Ms. Vice President Harris,
I have chosen only these four countries as an example from more than 50 US-backed military or civil coup attempts. Especially in these four countries, the administrations that won the elections democratically and with the free will of their people were overthrown by the USA-supported military coups, democracy and the rule of law were destroyed; hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed, arrested and subjected to inhumane torture and practice.
The accuracy of what I have written is adequately documented in details in the US and CIA archives.
We all know that after 1945, millions of people were killed by the wars made in more than 50 countries by the USA. Some of these countries are China, Korea, Guatemala, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Argentina and the ones that we still bear witness today are Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya.
As soon as you came to power, you made decisions that were highly appreciated by the world public opinion. You have decided that the USA will re-join the World Health Organization and the World Climate Protection Decision that the Mexican wall will not be built, and the visit from Muslim countries to the USA will not be blocked. I congratulate you on these urgent decisions. I think you have done what suits a modern and democratic USA that wants to protect its reputation in the world.
However, the main reason of my letter to you, which is open to the World Public, is whether the USA will stop supporting military and civilian coups in other countries and from time-to-time terrorist groups. Will you adhere to Democracy and Universal Human Rights as a requirement of democracy, the rule of law, freedom of opinion and press in all countries, which you have emphasized in your oath speech? I believe that the World Public has the right to know this.
In this regard, your open assurance to all Peoples and Countries of the World will greatly increase the trust in the USA and the prestige of your country.
I wish you success at your work with these wishes.
Ever since Pres. Joe Biden’s election last November, hundreds of articles have been published around the world analyzing the problematic relations between Turkey and the United States. Pres. Biden has made no secret of his dislike, if not outright hostility, toward Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
The main points of contention between the United States and Turkey are as follows:
1) U.S. support for Kurdish allies in Syria which Turkey considers terrorists;
2) Turkey’s purchase of S-400 Russian missiles which could expose NATO’s military technology to Moscow. As a result, the United States cancelled the sale of advanced F-35 jets and imposed sanctions on Turkey;
3) U.S. refusal to extradite the Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen whom Turkey falsely accuses of inciting the coup d’état against Erdogan in 2016;
4) Turkey’s abysmal record on human rights with the jailing of thousands of innocent civilians, journalists and judges on trumped up charges which Pres. Biden finds unacceptable.
Pres. Erdogan is following the strategy practiced by the Ottoman Empire of manipulating rival European powers against each other, by switching sides and changing partners. For example, he has declared himself to be the defender of all Muslims and particularly Palestinians, while engaging in a military partnership with Israel until recently. Another example is Turkey’s membership in the Western military alliance of NATO, while purchasing billions of dollars of sophisticated Russian missiles which are incompatible with NATO and U.S. weapons. At the same time, Erdogan is cozying up to Russia while involved in a military conflict with Russia in Syria and Libya. Turkey and Russia, two normally antagonistic countries, have also managed to find a modus vivendi in the Artsakh conflict.
The souring of relations between the U.S. and Turkey dates back to the time of Obama’s presidency, during which Biden served as Vice President. Erdogan was annoyed with Obama after an initial friendship. However, the Turkish leader developed a privileged relationship with the United States after Donald Trump became President. It is still unclear what prompted such a warm personal affection between the two. Was it Trump’s financial interests in Turkey or his bizarre fondness for tyrants around the world? We may never know.
Nevertheless, Biden fired the first shot in a December 2019 interview with the New York Times in which he called Erdogan an ‘autocrat’ and stated that the United States should support Turkish opposition leaders “to be able to take on and defeat Erdogan. Not by a coup, but by the electoral process.”
The next awkward situation arose when Erdogan congratulated Biden a few days after the November election. Four months later, Biden has still not contacted Erdogan even though he has called many other world leaders. Erdogan must be deeply offended by this diplomatic snub.
The first indication of the Biden administration’s tough policy on Turkey became evident on January 19, 2021, during Blinken’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing, when he pointedly called Turkey a “so-called strategic partner” and raised the possibility of imposing more sanctions on that country. “The idea that a strategic — so-called strategic partner of ours — would actually be in line with one of our biggest strategic competitors in Russia is not acceptable,” Blinken said. “I think we need to take a look to see the impact that the existing sanctions have had and then determine whether more needs to be done.”
Blinken’s critical comments on Turkey were later reaffirmed by US national security advisor Jake Sullivan who described Turkey as “an ally that in many ways… is not acting as an ally and this is a very, very significant challenge for us and we’re very clear-eyed about it.” Sullivan placed Turkey in the same category as China.
On Feb. 5, 2021, the Pentagon confirmed that the Biden administration has no intention to lift the sanctions on Turkey for purchasing the Russian missiles. Turkey’s “decision to purchase the S-400 is inconsistent with Turkey’s commitments as a U.S. and NATO ally,” Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said. “Our position has not changed…. We urge Turkey not to retain the S-400 system…. Turkey had multiple opportunities over the last decade to purchase the Patriot defense system from the United States and instead chose to purchase the S-400, which provides Russia revenue, access and influence,” Kirby said.
To make matters worse, Turkish Interior Minister Suleyman Soslu repeated in early February the baseless accusation that the United States was behind the abortive Turkish coup in 2016. State Department spokesman Ned Price issued a sharp rebuke, calling the allegations made by the Turkish Minister as “wholly false.” They “are inconsistent with Turkey’s status as a NATO ally and strategic partner of the United States,” added Price.
Another contentious issue is the in absentia Turkish trial of American professor Henri Barkey of Lehigh University on false charges of aiding the 2016 coup. The US State Department called the accusations against Prof. Barkey baseless.
On Feb. 10, 2021, the U.S. State Department called on Turkey to immediately release from jail Turkish philanthropist and human rights activist Osman Kavala who has been detained for more than three years without a conviction. Kavala was falsely accused of trying to overthrow the Turkish government with Prof. Barkey during the 2016 failed coup. The State Dept. urged Turkey to comply with a European Court of Human Rights ruling in late 2019 that Kavala be released.
On February 15, 2021, when Blinken finally called Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, he urged Turkey not to retain the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system.
Last December, when the United States placed sanctions against Turkey for the purchase of the Russian missiles, the Turkish Foreign Ministry arrogantly warned: “Turkey will take the necessary steps against this decision, which will negatively affect our relations and will retaliate in a manner and timing it deems appropriate.”
Turkey is still attempting to find a way to circumvent the U.S. sanctions. On February 1, 2021, it hired Arnold & Porter, a major American lobbying firm in Washington, D.C., to resolve the dispute with the U.S. government over the Russian missiles. The contract was signed with the Ankara-based SSTEK Defense Industry Technologies, owned by the Presidency of Defense Industries (SSB), Ankara’s main defense industry authority. SSTEK agreed to pay Arnold & Porter $750,000 for the six months to give Turkey “strategic advice and outreach” to U.S. authorities.
It is highly doubtful that Turkey will be able to resolve the dispute regarding the Russian missiles through its hired lobbyist. Interestingly, the contract with SSTEK specified that Arnold & Porter “does not make any promises or guarantees” about the outcome. “If the matter does not reach a successful conclusion, for any reason, SSTEK shall still be responsible for all fees and disbursements charged by the firm under the terms of this agreement.” It is noteworthy that at a time when the Turkish economy is on the verge of collapse and the Turkish people are in dire financial straits, Pres. Erdogan is wasting $750,000 of Turkish taxpayers’ money on useless lobbying.
It remains to be seen if Turkey’s tightrope walking skills will succeed to maintain the Russian missiles and evade the U.S. sanctions. Should Turkey be forced to get rid of the missiles, it will have to face the consequences of a major disruption in its relations with Russia. Turkey will then have to choose either the East or the West. It will no longer be able to fool both sides. Biden and Blinken are too experienced to fall for Erdogan’s tricks.
The title of a recent article by journalist Nicholas Morgan describes best the state of U.S.-Turkish relations: “Is Turkey Biden’s Ally from Hell?” We will find out shortly.
Neither Armenia’s previous nor current leaders have had the adequate experience to run a country. This is true in both domestic and foreign policies. In order to rectify this undesirable situation, some have suggested finding the pertinent experts who would advise Armenia’s leaders. Regrettably, all such efforts have failed for the simple reason that before the experts could be helpful; the leaders have to be willing to listen to their advice. My long experience in dealing with Armenia’s leaders has shown that they think they know everything and have no need to learn from anyone. This is one reason why the Republic of Armenia has been mismanaged for 30 years. It is understandable that a leader does not have to be knowledgeable about every issue. That is why he or she has advisors. But when the advisors know even less than their leader, as is the case in Armenia, the situation becomes hopeless.
I have written this lengthy introduction to make the point that in addition to not knowing much and not listening to advice, Armenia’s leaders refuse to learn from their past mistakes which is the reason why they repeat them.
One such example is the current discussion in Armenia and Turkey about the possible opening of the Armenian-Turkish border, closed by Turkey since 1993. Last week, Armenia’s Foreign Minister Ara Aivazyan told the members of Parliament: “There is no longer a reason [for Turkey] to close the border with Armenia. For long years, Turkey blockaded Armenia’s border, demanding a change in the status quo of the Artsakh conflict. The status quo has been changed through the use of force.” The Foreign Minister assured the Parliament that currently no activities have been initiated in that regard.
The Armenian Foreign Minister’s statement comes on the heels of recent expressions by the President and Foreign Minister of Turkey of their willingness to open the border with Armenia, should the latter meet certain conditions. In the past, Turkey’s reason for closing the border was Armenia’s refusal to free “Azerbaijan’s occupied territories.” Therefore, one would think that now that Azerbaijan has forcefully occupied most of these territories, the problem is solved and Turkey will open the border. However, let us remember that Turkey had two additional conditions to open Armenia’s border:
1) Armenia must abandon its pursuit of the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide;
2) Armenia must recognize Turkey’s current borders and not make any territorial demands.
We all recall that back in 2009 after Armenia and Turkey signed the Protocols to open their mutual border, Turkey made the additional demands from Armenia. When Armenia refused to accept these new conditions, Turkey decided not to ratify the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, after coming under intense pressure from Azerbaijan.
At the time, there was a major outcry from the Diaspora and many within Armenia that the Protocols were not in Armenia’s interests. Nevertheless, President Serzh Sargsyan persisted in his misguided approach, until Turkey gave up on the Protocols, inadvertently saving Armenia’s interests.
The other major harmful effect of the Protocols was that it undermined the pledge that Pres. Barack Obama had made to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide on April 24, 2009.
The Protocols were a clever Turkish ploy to derail the acknowledgment of Armenian Genocide by the President of the United States. The Turkish leaders, with the collaboration of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, repeatedly told Pres. Obama not issue a statement recognizing the Armenian Genocide at a time when Armenia and Turkey were engaged in serious negotiations on normalizing their relations. They succeeded in convincing Pres. Obama that using the term Armenian Genocide would disrupt these negotiations. As a result, instead of keeping his campaign pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide, Pres. Obama stated on April 24, 2009: “I also strongly support the efforts by Turkey and Armenia to normalize their bilateral relations. Under Swiss auspices, the two governments have agreed on a framework and roadmap for normalization. I commend this progress, and urge them to fulfill its promise.”
It is true that Pres. Obama failed to keep his campaign promise, but Armenia’s leaders are the ones who gave him the perfect excuse to hide behind the charade of the Protocols. Consequently, Armenians lost both the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by the President of the United States and the opening of the border.
Regrettably, the same scenario is about to repeat again this year. Pres. Joe Biden made a campaign promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide. It should be much easier for him to take such a step now, since both the House of Representatives (almost unanimously) and the U.S. Senate (unanimously) acknowledged the Armenian Genocide in 2019. While it is not certain that Pres. Biden will keep his promise, we should not give him the excuse not to do so.
If the past is any indication, this is the exact ploy that Turkey is plotting now. We know that the Biden Administration has a much harsher position vis-à-vis Pres. Erdogan and Turkey. There are several disputes between the United States and Turkey that will be difficult to overcome. Knowing this well, Pres. Erdogan has started in recent weeks to take steps to reconcile with Israel, Greece and Saudi Arabia in order to ingratiate himself to Pres. Biden. Pres. Erdogan’s suggestion to open the border with Armenia is a part of this overall Turkish strategy.
In the aftermath of the disastrous Artsakh War, Armenia’s leaders cannot afford to make more miscalculations. While most of Artsakh and its surrounding territories are already lost, I hope the Armenian Government does not make the mistake of providing an excuse for the Biden Administration not to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Even more importantly, Armenia’s leaders should not take the unthinkable step of pledging not to pursue the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide and acknowledge the current borders of Turkey. Such an acceptance would damage Armenia’s interests forever. How could Armenia agree to such Turkish suggestions in the aftermath of the vicious role played by Turkey in the recent Artsakh War, which resulted in the killing and maiming of thousands of Armenian soldiers and the occupation of Armenian territories? The wounds are too fresh to contemplate any attempt to normalize relations with Turkey.
Armenia’s inexperienced leaders can find themselves in an untenable situation if Turkey decides unilaterally to open its border, while Armenia refuses to do so; giving Turkey accolades and making Armenia seem obstructionist in the eyes of the international community. Armenia’s situation will be further complicated should Turkey open its border, whereas the Armenian Government just banned the import of Turkish products for six months or longer. Should the border open and Armenia allow the import of Turkish products, the Armenian market would be flooded with cheaper Turkish products, adversely affecting local manufacturers. One possible solution would be for Armenia, instead of outright banning Turkish imports, to place such an exorbitant tariff on them, making them practically unsaleable in the country. By avoiding the ban, Armenia would not look bad in the eyes of the world, while generating much needed revenue for the Armenian Government, should anyone import Turkish goods.
In the meantime, Armenia should put its own conditions on Turkey before agreeing to open its border, such as Turkish recognition of the Armenian Genocide and compensation for the Armenian losses. Such a move would contradict the positions of both Pres. Serzh Sargsyan and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan who have expressed their readiness to have Armenia ratify the ill-fated Protocols and open the border with Turkey, without any preconditions!
After ruling Armenia as Prime Minister for almost three years and most importantly during the country’s recent disastrous defeat in the Artsakh War, Nikol Pashinyan keeps making mistake after mistake and misstatement after misstatement.
As I have written before, regrettably Pashinyan is not competent to lead Armenia. He is more of a protester and a critic who does not possess the necessary skills and experience to be the head of state. The Artsakh War made the situation in the country even worse and exposed Pashinyan’s inability to manage the plethora of Armenia’s problems.
Armenians around the world had high hopes that, after getting rid of the previous regime, Pashinyan would be able to lead Armenia into prosperity and a degree a normalcy. The overwhelming majority of Armenians supported him due to their complete hostility to the former government.
Unfortunately, it turned out that Pashinyan was all talk and no action. In addition to his lack of experience, he surrounded himself with advisors and ministers who knew even less than he did. As a result, neither he nor his government had the slightest chance to be successful. The Artsakh War made matters worse. As the Commander-in-Chief, he made error after error leading Armenia and Artsakh to an indescribable disaster from which we will not recover for decades, if ever. Pashinyan now insists that he should remain in power to correct the grave problems of the country. One would be extremely naïve to believe in such a promise. A leader who is incompetent to lead in peace time and utterly fails during the war is in no position to correct anything. He has made matters worse with his misstatements and erroneous policies.
Several weeks ago, while addressing the Parliament, Pashinyan angered many Armenians by describing as “unfortunate and pale” the historic Armenian city of Shushi in Artsakh. There was no reason to use such negative adjectives to describe a city which is the pride of all Armenians.
More recently, during another appearance in Parliament, in response to a question from a deputy about Shushi, Pashinyan made matters worse for himself, when he said: “Shushi before the conflict and the liberation [in 1992], had an Azeri population of 90 and more percent. In other words, you mean to say that the city of Shushi with an Azeri population of 90 and more percent is Armenian with that status?”
A huge outcry erupted among Armenians around the world after Pashinyan’s unfortunate words. This was yet another self-inflicted wound. A few days later, during Pashinyan’s visit to Yeraplour, the cemetery where fallen Armenian soldiers are buried, when a journalist questioned him about his statement in Parliament on Shushi, he said that he would give an answer if the reporter put her question in writing. The following day, the journalist wrote Pashinyan’s words on a large placard and read them aloud, while standing in front of the Prime Minister’s building. Even though one of Pashinyan’s supporters attacked the journalist and tore up her placard, the Prime Minister kept his word and on his Facebook page addressed the controversy during a live video.
In his response, Pashinyan first accused the media of manipulating his words. He repeated that in the early 1990’s Azeris consisted of over 90% or rather 96% of Shushi residents. He went on to state: “How Shushi could be considered under Armenian control by its status when 96% of the population was Azerbaijani?” Pashinyan then mentioned the offer by Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev on October 19, 2020, several weeks before the end of the war, to accept Armenia’s demand for a ceasefire on condition that Armenians allow the return of the former Azeri residents to Shushi, under Armenian rule.
Pashinyan made several errors in his original statement and subsequent failed attempt to set the record straight. Actually, he had no reason to go into such a convoluted and false argument. He had just to say that he rejected Aliyev’s offer because allowing Azeris to return to Shushi under Armenian control was unacceptable to him and most Armenians. In fact, that’s exactly what Pashinyan told the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, when the latter relayed to him Aliyev’s offer. Had Pashinyan limited his remarks to that fact, there would have been no outcry in the Armenian world. There was no reason to say that Shushi was mostly populated by Azeris prior to 1992, causing such a controversy at a time when his power is waning and he is criticized by a lot of Armenians, including many of his former supporters.
By mentioning the high percentage of Azeris living in Shushi in the past, Pashinyan made several mistakes:
First of all, regardless of the number of Azeris who lived in Shushi, it is a well-known fact that it has been an Armenian city for centuries long before Azerbaijan existed. In 1920, after Azeris massacred thousands of Armenians in Shushi and pursued a policy to depopulate the city’s Armenians, their numbers were diminished considerably. But Pashinyan provided no such background in his misleading statement.
Secondly, Pashinyan was wrong to judge whether an area is Armenian or not by its population at a particular time. For example, there are hardly any Armenians now living in Nakhichevan or Western Armenia, but Armenians still consider these territories to be a part of historic Armenia.
Thirdly, it is understandable that accepting Aliyev’s offer to allow former Azeri residents to return to Shushi, under Armenian control, was a hard pill to swallow for Pashinyan and most Armenians, there is an important issue to consider. How many Azeris would have returned to Shushi to live under Armenian rule? Very few, if any. Pashinyan’s implication that thousands of Azeris would have returned to Shushi, making the city’s population again 96% Azeri was totally unrealistic. No Azeri would have wanted to live in Shushi under Armenian rule, just like no Armenian would risk living in territories controlled by Azerbaijan.
Finally, Pashinyan’s refusal to accept Aliyev’s offer on October 19, 2020, meant that the war was prolonged until November 9, 2020, causing the loss of much more Armenian territories to Azerbaijan. Furthermore, Azeris took over Shushi completely and many more young Armenian soldiers were killed or wounded. The consequences of Pashinyan’s faulty decisions during the war were far worse than his misstatement in Parliament and his subsequent lame effort to correct himself.
The Prime Minister should realize that the longer he clings to power, the more he destabilizes the country. A defeated and incompetent leader cannot improve the tragic situation in the country. The sooner he leaves, the faster a new government can take over and try to reduce the damages suffered by Armenia and Artsakh.
